From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759096Ab2DYLvy (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:51:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f51.google.com ([209.85.210.51]:53374 "EHLO mail-pz0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758114Ab2DYLvw (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:51:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4F97E550.4060208@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:51:44 +0800 From: Cong Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konstantin Khlebnikov CC: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] compiler.h: introduce unused_expression() macro References: <20120425112623.26927.43229.stgit@zurg> In-Reply-To: <20120425112623.26927.43229.stgit@zurg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/25/2012 07:26 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Sometimes we want to check some expressions correctness in compile-time without > generating extra code. "(void)(e)" does not work if expression has side-effects. > This patch introduces macro unused_expression() which helps in this situation. > Interesting, I am wondering why gcc doesn't eliminate the code as we pass either -O2 or -Os to it.